Gambeski v. Gauthier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gambeski v. Gauthier

9 A.D.2d 914, 195 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 21, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 914 (Gambeski v. Gauthier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gambeski v. Gauthier, 9 A.D.2d 914, 195 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare a deed void on the ground of nondelivery, and for an accounting of partnership assets, in Which action a counterclaim for specific performance was interposed, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) granting respondent summary judgment dismissing the third amended complaint, striking out appellant’s reply to the counterclaim, and granting judgment in favor of respondent on his counterclaim. Order and judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Ro opinion. Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Rolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and judgment and to deny the motion, with the following memorandum: Under the circumstances here, where the material facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the respondent and an attorney, one Hawthorne, appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to establish her ease by the examination of the respondent and the said attorney both before and at the trial. (Cf. Newman v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 281 App. Div. 852.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to declare a deed void on the ground of nondelivery, and for an accounting of partnership assets, in Which action a counterclaim for specific performance was interposed, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) granting respondent summary judgment dismissing the third amended complaint, striking out appellant’s reply to the counterclaim, and granting judgment in favor of respondent on his counterclaim. Order and judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Ro opinion. Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Rolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and judgment and to deny the motion, with the following memorandum: Under the circumstances here, where the material facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the respondent and an attorney, one Hawthorne, appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to establish her ease by the examination of the respondent and the said attorney both before and at the trial. (Cf. Newman v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 281 App. Div. 852.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 914, 195 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gambeski-v-gauthier-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack